Dread Elves 2.0 Beta Armybook

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • noir wrote:

    Look at the current lists and see what gets taken extensively. There you got your nerfs :P
    I have faith in the HotFixing and Rulesteam regarding the overall hotfix, but nerfing something just because it gets taken is not necessarily the only and best way to do it, as it could lead to an overall less powerlevel.

    The reason that some things are picked more often, is simply because they outshine the other choices which has to do with internal balance. I know that the hotfix for many armies have a set of "We must nerf X amount of things and buff Y amount of things", but simply because some things are taken more often does not equal that they require a nerf or a hotfix due to their seemingly higher powerlevel (When everything is relative in internal balance even a spearmen can seem like a god compared to a goblin with a stick)
  • Nemeroth wrote:

    noir wrote:

    Look at the current lists and see what gets taken extensively. There you got your nerfs :P
    I would hope they approach it a little more sensibly than that.
    I lost this hope sometime ago, when Giladis (among others from BLT) confirmed, that

    a) being good at something just means "access to better stats" and not also "price efficiency". This god awful way of approaching ASAW will always cause things like cheap goblin archers being better than elven archers or "five small cheap wizards" being better than one fully powered Cuatl Lord.

    b) they are using first and foremost the "empirical method to balance things", which basically means:

    i) Unit gets taken → nerf.
    ii) Units does not get taken → buff.
    iii) Unit is used in min sized → min models more costly than additional ones.
    iv) Unit is used max sized →min models are cheap, additional ones costly.

    If you already see why this is non-sensical my post is done here. Spoiler contains some examples why:

    Display Spoiler
    First example comparing HE/DE core: Highborn Lancers are just better than Citizen Spears. CS are not taken, so they get a buff. DL are already worse than CS spears. But they are taken, because all other options are even worse. DL remain worse and are now more expensive. Second example: Blades of Nabh work best at small to medium units (high number of attacks, cannot be panicked anyway). Get huge price hike for initial 10 models, making the unit collecting even more dust on the shelf. In the latest 2.0 beta we already saw, they are unwilling to price each and every unit contrary to their role. IMO they need to understand that the rules of the game dictate whether a unit will be fielded in/closer to min or max size and accept this as the outcome, except for extreme cases (read chaff). It's really silly to get a discount on initial models if you fully well know, that you need at least double the models for the unit to do their thing. And it's equally silly to pay a premium on the initial models for units that in fact do work with 10 models.


    If you want to read why I think this is a fundamental problem and which problems are systematic to this approach, read the second spoiler:


    Display Spoiler
    Let me also add a more theoretical example: Let's say army ABC has one unit of shooters, but the army very much relies on getting into combat fast with ideally all their troops. Their ASAW reflects this, with shooting being a weakness. Naturally the shooters have anti-synergy with the army. Now with the current approach, the BLT will do the following: First, the army weakness regarding shooters will not affect price efficiency, so they will have bad stats, but will also be dirt cheap. Each iteration in which the shooters are not taken, the shoorts receive a buff, while the other units are taken and receive a nerf. If you just go on with this way, at one point you will be at one of two outcomes: 1) No matter what you do, the shooters do not fit the army and nobody takes them still. 2) (much more likely) The shooters, being buffed several times in a row, become so insanely point efficient (ASAW implementation strategy is deliberately not preventing this), that these shooters approach a level, where they become so good, that people will include them in lists anyway. The natural way this progresses is that the ABC's army primary and intended playstyle (get into CC fast) is diluted by constant nerfs (because the unit who are actual cornerstones of this strategy get nerfed, because they are in the lists) while the unit representing an army weakness, becomes so point efficient, that people will recognize the value in the unit and start to spam it. Some playstyles for the army will emerge, that were not the intended playstyle.


    Going back: You think this is unrealistic? This already happened at least a few times: Once with WDG-gunline, once with Skirmisher-Qtf-MSU-EoS and I guess to some extend with OnG-gunline and KoE peasant army. And most importantly: This will continue to happen as the strategies laid out basically force exactly what I wrote above.

    So when you ask yourself: Why is this army so good at $stuff, when they should be bad at it? Here's your answer.
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    The post was edited 1 time, last by DarkSky ().

  • DarkSky wrote:

    Nemeroth wrote:

    noir wrote:

    Look at the current lists and see what gets taken extensively. There you got your nerfs :P
    I would hope they approach it a little more sensibly than that.
    I lost this hope sometime ago, when Giladis (among others from BLT) confirmed, that
    a) being good at something just means "access to better stats" and not also "price efficiency". This god awful way of approaching ASAW will always cause things like cheap goblin archers being better than elven archers or "five small cheap wizards" being better than one fully powered Cuatl Lord.

    b) they are using first and foremost the "empirical method to balance things", which basically means:

    i) Unit gets taken → nerf.
    ii) Units does not get taken → buff.
    iii) Unit is used in min sized → min models more costly than additional ones.
    iv) Unit is used max sized →min models are cheap, additional ones costly.

    If you already see why this is non-sensical my post is done here. Spoiler contains some examples why:

    Display Spoiler
    First example comparing HE/DE core: Highborn Lancers are just better than Citizen Spears. CS are not taken, so they get a buff. DL are already worse than CS spears. But they are taken, because all other options are even worse. DL remain worse and are now more expensive. Second example: Blades of Nabh work best at small to medium units (high number of attacks, cannot be panicked anyway). Get huge price hike for initial 10 models, making the unit collecting even more dust on the shelf. In the latest 2.0 beta we already saw, they are unwilling to price each and every unit contrary to their role. IMO they need to understand that the rules of the game dictate whether a unit will be fielded in/closer to min or max size and accept this as the outcome, except for extreme cases (read chaff). It's really silly to get a discount on initial models if you fully well know, that you need at least double the models for the unit to do their thing. And it's equally silly to pay a premium on the initial models for units that in fact do work with 10 models.


    If you want to read why I think this is a fundamental problem and which problems are systematic to this approach, read the second spoiler:


    Display Spoiler
    Let me also add a more theoretical example: Let's say army ABC has one unit of shooters, but the army very much relies on getting into combat fast with ideally all their troops. Their ASAW reflects this, with shooting being a weakness. Naturally the shooters have anti-synergy with the army. Now with the current approach, the BLT will do the following: First, the army weakness regarding shooters will not affect price efficiency, so they will have bad stats, but will also be dirt cheap. Each iteration in which the shooters are not taken, the shoorts receive a buff, while the other units are taken and receive a nerf. If you just go on with this way, at one point you will be at one of two outcomes: 1) No matter what you do, the shooters do not fit the army and nobody takes them still. 2) (much more likely) The shooters, being buffed several times in a row, become so insanely point efficient (ASAW implementation strategy is deliberately not preventing this), that these shooters approach a level, where they become so good, that people will include them in lists anyway. The natural way this progresses is that the ABC's army primary and intended playstyle (get into CC fast) is diluted by constant nerfs (because the unit who are actual cornerstones of this strategy get nerfed, because they are in the lists) while the unit representing an army weakness, becomes so point efficient, that people will recognize the value in the unit and start to spam it. Some playstyles for the army will emerge, that were not the intended playstyle.


    Going back: You think this is unrealistic? This already happened at least a few times: Once with WDG-gunline, once with Skirmisher-Qtf-MSU-EoS and I guess to some extend with OnG-gunline and KoE peasant army. And most importantly: This will continue to happen as the strategies laid out basically force exactly what I wrote above.

    So when you ask yourself: Why is this army so good at $stuff, when they should be bad at it? Here's your answer.


    If it is really like that...

    what the hell our medusa made to the staff?
    She should have something like Scourge of Wrath statline... :P
    ETC 2017 - Team Italy Coach
  • Nemeroth wrote:

    Is that really how they do it?!
    not really no. With @DarkSkys logic DL would have to be nerfed and corsairs too while blades would have to have gotten a buff 3years ago. Oh and don’t forget executioners! It’s just every list has got 3 hydras or krakens or whatever then they’ll look into it! Every list has got dunno.. the altar? They’ll keep an eye on it and maybe reprice. I don’t think they’re as unprofessional as you might think. Still by far not every price is right ofcourse!
  • noir wrote:

    not really no.
    I got separate confirmations from two individuals with "important red tags" as answers to very specific questions I brought up, that this is the general approach and principle they are using. So unless they didn't understand my question or were flatly out lying to me…

    I never got the intention, that they do this to each and every unit entry in every single update, but when looking back at 8+ iterations of the Dread Elf army book, this is exactly how they did it. The other major tool is of course the "redesign", which frees them somewhat from the principle done above, as a new entry starts with a "blank slate".
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • Lord Drakon wrote:

    Is there anything overpowered in the current book? Interesting and many options yes but I would find it strange to receive nerfs for the Dread Elves..
    Altar would be the main offender in my book. Maybe not OP but underpriced for sure. The design should push more into "better core, less altar-dependent" territory to improve the internal en external balance of DE.
    We can't stop here. This is bat country.
  • Taking the same units that are not pure chaff multiple times of course is an indication that this unit is more viable...stronger...whatever...then other options in the book.
    Nobody would take triple kraken if this model would not be stronger/cheaper for its power than other units.
    Of course the reason could be that everything else that could replace it is just bad but I doubt it.

    You can t just buff everything else to this level because this would just fire power creep in the book and beetween the books.

    Altar is still a kind of autotake. Sad but this will be the case until its effect is much more limited in power. Perhaps affecting only some units. Propably this can only be solved in coming book with proper adjustment of cults in general.
  • For me... the altar push me to play in a way that made me have less control of the battelfield. Its so good... but at the end is a tactical disventage because the bubble dependance.

    About monsters... if people deploy 3 krakens or Hydras... maybe the problem is not the cost, is allow to deploy 3 better than limited 0-2.
    I used to be Suddenwind... :)
  • Lord Drakon wrote:

    Is there anything overpowered in the current book? Interesting and many options yes but I would find it strange to receive nerfs for the Dread Elves..
    There are a few things that are blatantly underpriced, or at least so good that not including them is actively hamstringing yourself. The Altar in general, but particularly as a BSB mount (Special Choice Altar pretty much never gets taken because for two hundred odd more points you could make it the BSB, give it a bunch more decent attacks and boost its armour save to 2+ or so). Krakens and Hydras are hard to argue against being extremely points-efficient, though I wouldn't expect a huge price increase. Banner of Blood. DJs are probably a bit too good as well, internally at least. External balance is harder to judge with Great Weapon Elves. Spear upgrade for Legionnaires would be another example of something that's too cheap (though the final product is not, telling us the problem is non-spear Legionnaires being too expensive instead). Oracles could get a small price increase without hurting my feelings at all.

    The trick is that other than the BSB Altar combo, none of it is majorly overpowered and I wouldn't expect to see a massive point cost increase. 1-2 ppm for most of it, around 15 for the Kraken (we got a discount on Swiftstride in 2.0, which probably wasn't necessary considering the Kraken's already outstanding efficiency) and maybe 20-25 for the Hydra (seemingly only paid 5-10 points for Swiftstride after getting the points reduction it needed in the transition). Nothing should go up in price by more than 5-10% of its current price, which shouldn't ruin anything.

    I'd be shocked if DE as a whole don't wind up roughly at the same power level as before once the hotfix is done, since we seem to be pretty unremarkable power-wise right now. A couple of small price increases for the best stuff in the book, some price drops for the stuff that isn't working right now, and hopefully no more completely useless magic items (*Cough Transcendence Cough Gar Daecos Cough*). It's not like we were the worst army in the game going into the hotfix or anything like that. I don't know who was the worst army in the game (probably ID, VS or Empire? *shrug*), but it's blatantly not us. When the only armies in the game I'm truly afraid of playing against are HbE, SE and UD, and those only because oh god all my elves are getting shot to hell and there's nothing I can do about it, our army can't be that bad.
  • Eol wrote:

    For me... the altar push me to play in a way that made me have less control of the battelfield. Its so good... but at the end is a tactical disventage because the bubble dependance.

    About monsters... if people deploy 3 krakens or Hydras... maybe the problem is not the cost, is allow to deploy 3 better than limited 0-2.
    Or maybe the rest of the army have a bad job by this poor balancers or whatever involved in the DE design.
    9age are Dread Elves haters or simply, they dont know how to do it well.
  • Well, Special choice Altar has one major advantage: it doesn't take Character points, which are important if You want to include, say, a Dragon and a Manticore.
    My PLOG - restarted on the Ninth Age! - updated:
    06th December: Grail Knight WIP
    28th November: two battle reports!
    11th November: WIP Harpies
    20th October: 10 more Spearelves
    17th September: Battle Report is complete finally
    Previous entries: 2018: Aug 01&10, Jun 18,Apr 03, Mar 09,2017: Dec 04, 26, 30; Nov: 04, 19.
  • Ok, let's then tear apart those myths that Hydra is better than Kraken:
    - against T3 as 5+ infantry: Hydra inflicts ca 10 wounds when using breath weapon, ca 7 without, Kraken ca 6w, so the real difference comes from the bw which is one use only item as everybody knows,
    - against t4 as 4+ infantry: Kraken still 6w, Hydra 8w with the bw, 6w without.

    Against anything better re infantry and against heavy cavalry and multiple hp models Kraken is straight better.

    Re survivabilty: regen is a little better than hard target and distracting but not that much.

    Kraken can also be postitoned more freely on the battlefield. One failed charge or reckless postioning of Hydra and you are in some danger. Re Kraken - not so much. Everybody will think twice before charging him due to his high S multiple wounds.

    So my verdict is: Kraken will still be played at 390-400 points, Hydra at 430-440 - not so much. :)
    We can't stop here. This is bat country.
  • Well, Hydra is best against mass infantry and Kraken - versus other monsters. I think DE generally have more tools against infantry (bazillion Witch Elf attacks, crossbows, etc) and not that much against high toughness things: Exec's, Dragon, Raptor Knights on charge. So despite Hydra being the signature monster since 3rd edition I think, Kraken seems more useful.
    My PLOG - restarted on the Ninth Age! - updated:
    06th December: Grail Knight WIP
    28th November: two battle reports!
    11th November: WIP Harpies
    20th October: 10 more Spearelves
    17th September: Battle Report is complete finally
    Previous entries: 2018: Aug 01&10, Jun 18,Apr 03, Mar 09,2017: Dec 04, 26, 30; Nov: 04, 19.
  • Klaudel wrote:

    Ok, let's then tear apart those myths that Hydra is better than Kraken:
    - against T3 as 5+ infantry: Hydra inflicts ca 10 wounds when using breath weapon, ca 7 without, Kraken ca 6w, so the real difference comes from the bw which is one use only item as everybody knows,
    - against t4 as 4+ infantry: Kraken still 6w, Hydra 8w with the bw, 6w without.

    Against anything better re infantry and against heavy cavalry and multiple hp models Kraken is straight better.

    Re survivabilty: regen is a little better than hard target and distracting but not that much.

    Kraken can also be postitoned more freely on the battlefield. One failed charge or reckless postioning of Hydra and you are in some danger. Re Kraken - not so much. Everybody will think twice before charging him due to his high S multiple wounds.

    So my verdict is: Kraken will still be played at 390-400 points, Hydra at 430-440 - not so much. :)
    Hydra does 1.66 more Wounds than Kraken against T3 WS4 AS5+ or worse without using BW, 5.5 more when using BW (your numbers round down for the Hydra twice, missing out on one average Wound caused overall, and round up for the Kraken). That is a significant number, particularly when the Hydra will take dramatically less damage in return from all non-Flaming sources of damage. Admittedly, both will win combat eternally against such units barring Great Weapons, but the Hydra will grind through 25 models 1-2 combat phases faster than the Kraken.
    Against T4 4+, your numbers appear to be straight-up wrong. Hydra should do 4.53 Wounds after armour without Breath Weapon, 6.75 Wounds with Breath Weapon, while the Kraken does 5.14 Wounds. Hydra again takes far less damage from all non-flaming sources than Kraken (Against S4 Off 4, AP1 the Hydra takes one Wound per 18 attacks while the Kraken takes one per 13.5 attacks, meaning the Hydra is a full 33% more durable. And that's a good case for the Kraken. How about a fight against Swordmasters? Here the Hydra takes one Wound per 5.76 attacks while the Kraken suffers a wound per 3.6 attacks, meaning the Hydra is a full 66% more durable).

    Also, the instant you take away Stomp the numbers flow back in favour of the Hydra. Kraken struggles to do more than 2 Wounds to, say, Dark Raiders, while Hydra knocks out around 4.

    In the end, both do what they're supposed to do. Kraken deals well with durable targets and crushes multiwound models, Hydra grinds out infantry and does a huge damage spike when it pulls out the Breath Weapon. Hydra's greater durability is what makes it more expensive, and the reason the Kraken sees more play is that DE have lots of tools for mulching infantry but far fewer for dealing with T6+ monsters. IE, the Kraken fills a gap in the army while the Hydra has to compete with Tower Guard and even Core like Spearmen for its primary role. Hell, even DJs aren't big fans of fighting T6+ monsters, and wind up closer to the Hydra on comparison. Realistically, Kraken should sit around the 390-400 point range and Hydra should be at roughly 430. And if Hunting Chariots were a viable option for countering multi-Wound high-T monsters (fingers crossed), Krakens might become a bit less of a must-have which could open space for lists using Hydras as brick-breakers and shooting to counter Monsters.
  • Klaudel wrote:

    Altar would be the main offender in my book. Maybe not OP but underpriced for sure. The design should push more into "better core, less altar-dependent" territory to improve the internal en external balance of DE.
    Do something similar as VS got with pendulum, so you cannot take it with e.g. Vermin Guard or Rats-at-Arms?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!